Health care: Going from broken to broke

[firstandten]

Quote: "Hopefully, this health care bill is just a first step"

LOL... The insurance companies got what they wanted, their products rammed down our throats whether we want them or not, no caps on premiums and 40+ million new customers. It won't be changed. This is just another phase in breaking the back of this country. And you people align with some stupidassed political party, and argue FOR these types of things. Amazing.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. H. L. Mencken

In your perfect world what would health care reform look like ? Or do we even need it ?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "In your perfect world what would health care reform look like ?"

It would not involve any mandate associated with the commerce of a privately held institution.

[maxx]

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/1...dicare_you_can

[maxx]

[quote=Sstashmoo;133395]Quote: "Hopefully, this health care bill is just a first step"

LOL... The insurance companies got what they wanted, their products rammed down our throats whether we want them or not, no caps on premiums and 40+ million new customers. It won't be changed. This is just another phase in breaking the back of this country. And you people align with some stupidassed political party, and argue FOR these types of things. Amazing.
[quote]
I take it you don't vote for the candidates of either party. You just sit on the sidelines criticizing everything, offering no solutions and feeling superior. I met people like that when I was registering people to vote.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I met people like that when I was registering people to vote."

People that can think for themselves without following the party program? Yeah, there are a few of us around..

[Zacha341]

Just-a couple.... LOL! Though I am a registered Dem on someones computer terminal I learned I could not follow the Demincans and Republicrats around each and every corner some 20 years ago. Malcolm X said you had to be schizophrenic to follow the roads of either to loyally. Thus, when Dems behave like Repubs etc or the other way arouund. I am never in shock.

I don't full ascribe one set of behavior or policies only to one party. I just see the "allowance" of that behavior dependent on the party being given a "pass" to be somewhat curious. But not surprising either...

Once I began to understanding the supreme "party" of self interest and power consolidation, the chess board and players made more sense! Well sorta!!

Quote: "I met people like that when I was registering people to vote."

People that can think for themselves without following the party program? Yeah, there are a few of us around..

[firstandten]

Quote: "In your perfect world what would health care reform look like ?"

It would not involve any mandate associated with the commerce of a privately held institution.

So, should we have done nothing, since what you describe is the state of health care before the passage of the bill ?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "So, should we have done nothing,"

In lieu of the economy, the unemployed and uninsured, we need something, but not what we have now..

Incidentally, I've been talking to several folks this weekend, and many are reporting rather dismal sales for last week after the passing of this bill. No one knows if it is related to that. Anyone else notice this as well?

[firstandten]

Quote: "So, should we have done nothing,"

In lieu of the economy, the unemployed and uninsured, we need something, but not what we have now..

So given that the employer based health care system has broken down we need something but what ? If what we have now is not good enough then what is ?

See its easy to criticise something when you don't offer anything to replace it.

This bill is republican-esque in its core. Actually if the GOP didn't have its Waterloo strategy in place this bill would have gotten more GOP support. To really reform the health care system you are looking at something more radical, more gov't control than this bill has. So I ask again, if not this, then what ?

[Danny]

"The film was broadcasted on Frontline and distributed by Public Broadcasting Stations in 1983. The other film was Sicko by Michael Moore. This film focuses on the health crisis in America. It also focuses on other foreign nations who claimed to have absolutely free health care for its patients..."

I don't think this was claimed in "Sicko". Europeans pay for their healthcare through taxes. Of course, they don't have the huge defense budget that the U.S. pays for. Who does?

Danny, your essay sounds like it is for a movie crit. class, so I'll just mention some small changes you could make to your sentences.

" If the patient doesn’t pay the bill, he or she could be dumped out to the street in which it's unethical." Drop the "in" and use "onto the the street".

"The scenes in the movie Sicko show some ethical considerations for the improvement between health insurance companies and their patients."
What sort of improvements?

"Moore focused his interests on a man named Doug Noe.."
Focused his attention is the usual phrase.

" Because his health care was only going to cover half of his daughter Annette's ear operation, he threatened to tell Michael Moore that his insurance company didn't cover the whole cost.."
He wrote a letter to Cigna threatening to tell his situation to Michael Moore [who was making "Sicko" at the time]?

" In fact, Doug wrote to Cigna that if Moore proposed a documentary on health care problems in the United States, the company will be interviewed by him. Cigna knew the threat and the company covered the entire cost for Doug's daughter's ear operation."

This uses too many words to say what I said. Also Cigna recognized the threat.

"She went to Canada for a physical. Usually by Canadian Common Law, you have to be an official Canadian citizen in order to receive free health care. "
These should be combined into one sentence. I would drop "official".

" Thanks to Kyle, Adrian’s Canadian friend, Campbell actually tricked the Canadian clinic's officials by signing Kyle's name and address and marital status, making them believe that Adrian was a Canadian citizen. She received free health care."
Combine these too.

"Moore uses this footage to give the audience a debate;"
Moore pointed out the ethical ramifications of her actions.

" Plus to make the film more ethically considerate, Moore filmed some scenes of the people in France marching in protest for housing, employment and public services..."
I don't know what you mean by ethically considerate. Your paper appears to be dealing with the way movies present ethical issues. If that is the case, then you should talk about these ethical considerations from the start. Your intro just talks about health care in general. That's the way I would do it anyway. I am not seeing a big difference between the two movies as you present them. Michael Moore is known for bringing his own brand of humor and pathos to his docs. He wants to get people excited, not just informed about the issues he presents. In fact he has been called a propagandist by people who don't like his messages.

Michael Moore created Sicko in order to have health care reform in United States. He was actually attacking health insurance companies and its lobbyists who are supporting the republican right to let their companies do its thing, MAKE A STUPID PLUTOMONIC PROFIT! Just two years later after the film, democrats in Congress finally answered his call. As the moment we have a first black liberal president in office, the health care reform bill was proposed. The Republicans didn't like it, the Tea Party Terrorists opposed it. However the democrats voted YES, YES, YES and Obama signed into law. This proto-socialist universal health care is law and there nothing we can do to stop it. Let us put up, shut up and move on.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Because health care is our birthright like air and water for Neda Soltani's sake.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "See its easy to criticise something when you don't offer anything to replace it."

I may not be a chef, but I know when the food sucks.

Quote: "This bill is republican-esque in its core."

"Corporatesque" is a more accurate term. Silly party line squabbling, and that is exactly what the special interests were hoping for undoubtedly. The American people just got did, and the majority of these simply bicker back and forth over some party line nonsense. Wake up man, can't you see no matter who is in there, it's the same shit just a different wrapper?

Quote: "So I ask again, if not this, then what ?"

A federally overseen health cooperative. No insurance companies- no greedy investors hedging bets against our health.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "He was actually attacking health insurance companies and its lobbyists who are supporting the republican right to let their companies do its thing, MAKE A STUPID PLUTOMONIC PROFIT!"

So, areyou inferring that the insurance companies will now operate as non-profits?There is a haha

[mjs]

This bill is republican-esque in its core. Actually if the GOP didn't have its Waterloo strategy in place this bill would have gotten more GOP support. To really reform the health care system you are looking at something more radical, more gov't control than this bill has. So I ask again, if not this, then what ?

Think about what you said for a moment. When I hear Obama say that type of stuff, I think, Ok, they all try to put their spin on it. But, really, why would any democrat have changed the bill one tiny iota to not get a single vote? They would have to be the worst party ever to have an overwhelming majority and still have their core beliefs broken by the minority party. The Dems were free to write whatever level of government control they wanted in the bill. Their bill; their vote.

Stick to the its better than nothing explanation. I would have preferred a bill that had cost reduction measures as a trade-off for more government handouts, but I suppose that Congress would never do that so perhaps it might be better than nothing. However, I still can't understand how subsidizing an expense that goes up every year and is predicted to keep going up will be covered by taxes that don't go up. I mean they keep talking about how rising health care costs are affecting big business, but if my memory serves me correctly, the legacy costs from a deal with the rising costs later mentality is what has put so many large corporations into bankruptcy which ultimately screwed the intended beneficicaries more than anyone.

[ghettopalmetto]

Think about what you said for a moment. When I hear Obama say that type of stuff, I think, Ok, they all try to put their spin on it.

Okay, so don't believe President Obama when he says the health care law contains Republican ideas. Take it from the notoriously conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page, or former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney:

In fact, requiring each American to have health insurance was created by a conservative economist in the 1980s and slowly gathered momentum until the insurance industry embraced it in 2008.

Mark Pauly, a free-market economist at the University of Pennsylvania, said he came up with the proposal for the first Bush administration. His proposal required only catastrophic coverage — as an alternative to those pushing for all employers to offer insurance.

The idea was picked up in 2006 by Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor crafted a health-care law that requires almost all state residents to have coverage.

"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote then in The Wall Street Journal. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."

Romney was referring to the federal law that requires everyone to be treated in emergency rooms, regardless of their ability to pay.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...mandate25.html


And, if I'm not badly mistaken, I believe it was Sen. John McCain who campaigned on "health insurance exchanges" in 2008, NOT Barack Obama. Guess what's included in the health care law?

[Retroit]

...He was actually attacking health insurance companies and its lobbyists who are supporting the republican right to let their companies do its thing...

Aetna, Inc.
Democratic Contributions: $390,962
Republican Contributions: $336,795
Lobbying: $4,125,280
Assurant Health
Democratic Contributions: $180,900
Republican Contributions: $191,697
Lobbying: $3,556,000
Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Democratic Contributions: $1,543,570
Republican Contributions: $1,666,331
Lobbying: $25,586,969
CIGNA Corporation
Democratic Contributions: $164,635
Republican Contributions: $293,460
Lobbying: $2,481,436
Coventry Health Care, Inc.
Democratic Contributions: $49,000
Republican Contributions: $49,850
Lobbying: $1,300,000
Golden Rule
Democratic Contributions: $0
Republican Contributions: $256
Lobbying: $0
Health Net, Inc.
Democratic Contributions: $187,745
Republican Contributions: $124,723
Lobbying: $4,055,200
Health Partners, Inc.
Democratic Contributions: $47,744
Republican Contributions: $10,010
Lobbying: $104,962
Highmark, Inc.
Democratic Contributions: $9,300
Republican Contributions: $9,850
Lobbying: $574,137
Humana, Inc.
Democratic Contributions: $227,950
Republican Contributions: $375,900
Lobbying: $2,628,945
Kaiser Permanente
Democratic Contributions: $499,700
Republican Contributions: $78,702
Lobbying: $595,000
I find this one especially encouraging when you add in the facts that Kaiser has illegally canceled individual insurance policies, is currently being sued for nonpayment to emergency room treatment of HMO patients, and is being sued for discrimination against children with Autism. This company has the greatest disparity of contribution between the two parties, and it is skewed toward the Democrat party.
PacifiCare Health Systems
Democratic Contributions: $2,500
Republican Contributions: $5,100
Lobbying: $0
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.
Democratic Contributions: $954,813
Republican Contributions: $616,571
Lobbying: $9,774,000
Vanguard Health Systems
Democratic Contributions: $73,350
Republican Contributions: $61,600
Lobbying: $50,000
Wellpoint, Inc.
Democratic Contributions: $319,970
Republican Contributions: $663,526
Lobbying: $5,350,000
Out of curiosity, are you noticing a theme here? No one is being honest in this debate. This is why doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING until after 2010 is the right thing to do. We cannot, and should not trust these crooks in WADC.
So how does this break down over these 15 companies.
Contributions to Democrats: $4,652,139
Contributions to Republicans: $4,484,371
Total Lobbying: $60,181,929

[[source: http://claycomopolitics.wordpress.co...contribute-to/)
Another good source: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009...ty-health.html

[firstandten]

Think about what you said for a moment. When I hear Obama say that type of stuff, I think, Ok, they all try to put their spin on it. But, really, why would any democrat have changed the bill one tiny iota to not get a single vote? They would have to be the worst party ever to have an overwhelming majority and still have their core beliefs broken by the minority party. The Dems were free to write whatever level of government control they wanted in the bill. Their bill; their vote.

Not really the votes were not there for a single payer option, so yes that means there would not have been enough Dem support to pass such a bill

Stick to the its better than nothing explanation. I would have preferred a bill that had cost reduction measures as a trade-off for more government handouts, but I suppose that Congress would never do that so perhaps it might be better than nothing. However, I still can't understand how subsidizing an expense that goes up every year and is predicted to keep going up will be covered by taxes that don't go up. I mean they keep talking about how rising health care costs are affecting big business, but if my memory serves me correctly, the legacy costs from a deal with the rising costs later mentality is what has put so many large corporations into bankruptcy which ultimately screwed the intended beneficicaries more than anyone.

Here is a simple breakdown as to why this bill will reduce the deficit from Aaron Carroll MD

1. $416.5 billion from Medicare spending cuts [[$136 billion is Medicare Advantage reductions, $196 billion is fee-for-service rate reductions, $36 billion is DSH payment reductions, and the rest is “other�).
2. $210 billion from an additional 0.9% Medicare Tax on income above $200K for individuals and $250K for married couples, plus additional Medicare tax of 3.8% on investment income for those same people
3. $107 billion from fees on insurers and medical providers
4. $69 billion from penalties from employer/individual “mandates�
5. $52 billion from other net spending cuts [[including education reform)
6. $45 billion from Medicaid spending cuts
7. $32 billion from excise [[“Cadillac�) tax
8. $149 billion from other revenue provisions

Add that up and you get $1.085 trillion dollars. Since the bill is projected to cost $938 billion, that’s how you get a deficit reduction of $142.5 billion.

And you get the benefits of 30 mil additional covered and the other good stuff the bill covers

[Sstashmoo]

Firstandten, So this bill will yank over a trillion out of our economy and you don't see a problem with that? Again, the government doesn't pay for anything, they spend our money. This Dr Aaron Carrol is full of it.

[[You're supposed to provide a link when you copy and paste from another source)

[ghettopalmetto]

Firstandten, So this bill will yank over a trillion out of our economy and you don't see a problem with that? Again, the government doesn't pay for anything, they spend our money. This Dr Aaron Carrol is full of it.

[[You're supposed to provide a link when you copy and paste from another source)

How does it yank money out of the economy? Show the math. GDP, by definition, is the value of all goods and services reduced. I don't see how the health care reforms decrease the monetary value of health care services. In fact, I would speculate that any reductions in expenditures on health care are monies that become available for investment.

Also, please show supporting evidence to your claim that "Dr. Aaron Carroll is full of it".

Or are you just posturing again with baseless made-up bullshit?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "How does it yank money out of the economy?"

Are you really that thick? Fining businesses - decreased employee compensation, cutting education dollars, increased taxes. If you think these insurance companies are going to start giving away free policies, you are totally clueless. Wait till you start shopping for insurance. You got a big surprise coming.

[ghettopalmetto]

Quote: "How does it yank money out of the economy?"

Are you really that thick? Fining businesses - decreased employee compensation, cutting education dollars, increased taxes. If you think these insurance companies are going to start giving away free policies, you are totally clueless. Wait till you start shopping for insurance. You got a big surprise coming.

I don't see any math--just guessing and wild-eyed speculation without supporting evidence.

GDP = C + I + G + [[X - M)

where: C = consumer spending, I = investment, G = government, X = exports, M = imports

So which one of these five categories is going to get walloped by the new health care law, as you claim? Let's see you put some numbers behind your assertions, lest anyone get the wrong idea and think you're full of shit.

[Sstashmoo]

You left out "F", that stands for the insurance industry. They will be the big receivers of the windfall from this bill. "F" will do well. The Gov will increase taxes, not sure if you've noticed, but that greatly reduces spending, which in turn reduces private investment, which in turn fuels inflation. They will fine employers, many of which are in hock to their eyeballs as it is. This will force many businesses to dissolve or at least scale back to less than 50 employees, increasing the unemployment numbers. The "G", the government. They are going to run something and keep it in the black? They are 12 trillion dollars in debt now. The bottom line is, nothing is free. When you increase taxes, you pull money out of the economy. When you impose costs on businesses, you eliminate jobs. When you force people to buy something they cannot afford, that takes money away they would have spent supporting other businesses. All simple to understand

Quote: "guessing and wild-eyed speculation"

No guessing involved. We are still going to be dealing with the same bunch of bastards. They have you folks believing they are miraculously going to become benevolent and make sure everyone gets a fair shake. Please.. This "competition will lower premiums" is nothing but a lie. We've had competition in the insurance market for years, it hasn't dropped rates. During a period where price was the difference between you buying it or not, now the Gov is going to force you to buy their product, and the Insurance industry will be clamoring for your business? They aren't going to give two shits if you buy it or not. And you WILL pay what they demand. "F" is the big winner.

Our economy is right on the brink of total collapse, this may be the keystone for it.

[ghettopalmetto]

You left out "F", that stands for the insurance industry.

No macroecomics textbook considers the insurance industry as a separate component of Gross Domestic Product. Since I know you would never fabricate anything in an attempt to justify your own opinion, please cite your source for this BRAND NEW DEFINITION OF GDP.

The Gov will increase taxes, not sure if you've noticed, but that greatly reduces spending, which in turn reduces private investment, which in turn fuels inflation.

I'm okay with Warren Buffett paying a little more in taxes. Your statements assume that the five components of GDP are necessarily dependent upon one another, which is not the case. If GDP is growing, there is room for both increased Government spending, increased Consumer spending, AND increased private Investment. The five components of GDP do not exist in mutual exclusion. Unless, of course, you wish to continue reinventing macroeconomics as you personally see fit.

When you increase taxes, you pull money out of the economy.

For the second time, show your math.

We've had competition in the insurance market for years, it hasn't dropped rates.

Really? My insurance comes from a firm already chosen for me. I have to see a doctor in the network. Where's the competition in that?

You could stand to pick up a book once in a while instead of talking about of your asshole. Your fearmongering might fly with the hillbillies, but is wasted on the educated.

[oladub]

Dr. Aaron Carroll is kind of a policy doctor who was recently on a Single Payer Health for America Tour. But here he is touting a different plan perhaps because all the direct support he has been recieving. I wonder if he also testifies in court cases for pin money. It is a shame that no one will be held accountable when costs far exceed promises as they did with Medicare.


Maybe we will never know the total costs because even corporate executives who dare to open their mouths about new expenses are being intimidated and even called unpatriotic in the best traditions of economic fascism.

"[[Dr. Carroll's) initial research focused on the study of information technology to improve pediatric care. He has however also developed a solid foundation and track record in policy research with recent publications relating to physician malpractice, pharmaceutical industry influence in medical education, and physician support of health care financing reform. He has published almost 40 peer-reviewed manuscripts and has been awarded more than $2.1 million in direct support through both extramural and intramural funding sources."
http://bioethics.iu.edu/body.cfm?id=38&fr=true

[ghettopalmetto]

He has published almost 40 peer-reviewed manuscripts....

Yet we should ignore every damned thing Dr. Carroll says, and instead listen to opinions of people who live every waking hour scared of the Big Bad Gubment?

[jiminnm]

Yet we should ignore every damned thing Dr. Carroll says, and instead listen to opinions of people who live every waking hour scared of the Big Bad Gubment?

No, but you should occasionally use your own brain. Proposed cuts in Medicare spending represent half of estimated "savings", but those cuts are illusory.

No legislation has been proposed to reduce Medicare benefits. In Fact, Dingell has already sponsored a bill that would increase Medicare payments to providers by $200-250 billion over the next 10 years. Pelosi has claimed that bill is separate from the health insurance/care bill and shouldn't be considered a related cost.

Also, you're dreaming if you think seniors are going to sit back and calmly accept a 15-20% reduction in Medicare benefits [[especially as the number of doctors accepting new Medicare patients gets smaller every day due to the financial losses they accept with every new patient). They're a large bloc who regularly vote with their pocketbooks.